We wanted to eventually get back to 129 and then across 546 (along the Little White River - another road not to be missed) to head in the general direction of Elliot Lake. The map showed a line (albeit a lightly drawn one) going from where we were, to where we wanted to be. "It's labeled on a large scale provincial map so how bad could it be?" I noted. "Can't be any worse than yesterday, can it?" Rob gave me the 'I know I shouldn't listen to you' look and followed anyway. Silly bastard.

Within 5 minutes of my pretending to know which way I was going, we were lost. Of course, I wasn't going to let on to that fact. "There was a sign for the Tunnel Lake Outpost back there, don't worry, we're going the right way."

The gravel road gradually narrowed from two lanes to one, with the consistency of the gravel varying from pea-stone, to baseball sized rocks, to loose sand. Not ideal riding conditions.

We continued on, driving deeper and deeper into the backwoods. Rob and Wendy suspiciously following my confident but blind choices at forks in the road (actually, to still be calling it a road at this point may be a little imprecise). We stopped every 10 minutes or so to hear Rob's "I'm pretty sure I've read about people dying this way, and I don't have my anti-dying-in-the-woods pills" speech. I never worried though. I knew that we could always follow our tire tracks in the sand back to where we started, if necessary.

Then it started raining. Hard.

Five minutes later we found the Tunnel Lake Outpost, which turned out to be a fishin' and huntin' camp 40km from pavement. The jaws of the few locals standing around had already dropped at the sight of three previously shiny motorcycles appearing through the trees. I thought one of the older guys was going to have a stroke when I asked him which way Toronto was.

The directions were simple. Follow this trail back to the sign and turn left on the "main road". This led to a frustrating comparison of his version and my version of a "main" road. Everything we were driving on looked more like your average game trail.

After listening to the warnings of one hunter saying he could barely make it in on the "main road" in his 4x4, we followed the instructions and an hour later made it out of probably the most exciting roads these bikes (or riders) would ever see. The "main road" surface varied from mud to rock, to big rock, to boulder, rising up and down over terrain and deep puddles we couldn't even imagine driving a 4-wheeled vehicle through.

Once we hit the pavement again, Rob shot me a filthy look (not to mention certain words...) and took the lead for the rest of the trip.

Overall impressions of the bikes: great for long-distance hauls. I now know why the other half lives the way they do. The fuel range (similar, though the Honda was slightly thirstier), the comfyish seats, the beautiful hard bags, the big windshields, etc. The handling was obviously not up to sportbike standard, but that doesn't matter to the people who own them. It almost didn't matter to us either. The shadow ground it's pegs only with determination on unfamiliar roads and the RT never even came close at our pace.

Directly comparing the two is a tough job. It's the Computer Geek vs. the Fat Bastard. High Tech vs. Big Belly. The BMW wows it's rider with gadgetry. The electric windshield, the heated hand grips, the adjustable seat, the four-way flashers, the telelever suspension ... I could go on forever. The Honda on the other hand, just asks it's owners to get on and ride, to forget about the time (or even the era) and to wind up somewhere you've never been before.

Nick Smirniw

Second View - by Editor 'arris

At first glance, comparing the BM to the Honda seems like comparing apples to oranges. A sport touring to a cruiser tourer. But surprisingly they have an awful amount of similarities. Both have shields to protect you against wind blast on the highway, both have hard luggage and both mention the word 'tour' somewhere in their sales blurb. Oh yeah, and they're both 1100cc twins. See, we're not that mad after all.

Anyway, firstly, let's get into the BMW. The R1100RT is touted as BM's touring bike (let's not even think about the new K1200LT, as we didn't know about that when we did this test last summer). Hard bags, full fairing with adjustable screen, heated grips. It's designed for one purpose... touring. With this in mind, I can't help but feeling a little disappointed. Like the way a highly rated movie inevitable never lives up to its hype. Not because you didn't necessarily enjoy it, but just because all the hype made it impossible to match.

Don't get me wrong, the R1100RT is a great tourer, it just fell into the A category when I was expecting an A+. Other journalists would disagree (Larry Tate), and maybe my super sensitive derriere, combined with a 6'4" chassis went outside the design limits. But I didn't expect to be feeling any discomfort after only an hour in the saddle. Having said all that, it beats most other bikes hands-down. With it's three way adjustable seat, electrically adjustable windscreen, heated grips (great for drying out wet gloves) and large capacity waterproof removable bags (quick motel room access).

The telelever suspension up front is just excellent. No dive when braking, and compliant, even over the worst northern Ontario 'roads'. The engine, although smooth, does transmit a modicum of vibration to the rider, but not intrusively so. It'll also pull in top from as low as 2000rpm, but never at any point should you expect, or indeed do you get, arm wrenching acceleration. The five speed box is a little stiff, requiring a good jab to change gears, and there's the occasional false neutral in there too.

Starting the fuel injected motor is done easily with the aid of a fast idle lever, but BM have seen it fit to not allow it to run with the side stand down. Annoying when you just want it to start so that you can get on with your ride.

Now for the Honda. To be honest, I'm not a big cruiser fan. Sitting upright in the wind, feet forward, with all the bumps going right through yer spine is not my idea of a good ride. With this in mind, I was expecting a D-, but surprisingly came out giving it an A as well.

The ACE Tourer overcomes these pitfalls by not pushing the pegs too far forward - having pegs instead of boards (easier to put more weight on yer feet over bumps) and having a big screen up front to cut through the wind. It also has respectable ground clearance (again aided by use of pegs over boards) and enough low down torque in the motor, with a useful amount still up top, to give it some real life usage in the city as well as on the highway.

The engine is carburated and takes a couple of minutes to fully warm up and the gearbox is relatively smooth except for a pronounced clunk between first and second. I found the suspension a bit on the soft side, but then it is a cruiser.

The hard bags work well but maybe a bit on the small side for serious touring. They also open from the top, thereby limiting the size of objects inserted, and are non detachable, requiring everything to be lugged out upon arrival at your chosen resting place.

So in the end, does the ACE deserve the same rating as the RT? Not really, because the RT generally beats it (but not by a great deal) in most areas. But then the great leveler is in the price. The high tech RT comes in around the $20,000 mark, a full $5,000 up on the ACE. That's a chunk and that's where the ACE makes up the grade.

Rob Harris

BACK TO PART ONE (click here)